Walt Disney World: A Case Study in Anarchy

In the scenario that you present, I would say the best way to handle it would be to protect the houses that chip in and leave the other houses alone to protect themselves.

It's easy to come up with hypotheticals that are a microcosm of a country that is 300 million strong. I have never once advocated for what our government has turned into since our break from Britain. I am disgusted with what has happened and I've worked hard to try and change it. But because I support the original intent of our founders, somehow that now makes me a bloodthirsty tyrant.

What's happening in this forum is disheartening.

I ask again: At what point does armed robbery become magically transformed into something just, right and proper (taxation)? How many people does it take for the EXACT SAME ACT to be transformed from a moral outrage into a righteous act? And, exactly how does this magical transformation occur?

Also, from where exactly did the DELEGATED power to tax come from? What is its legitimate source? WHO EXACTLY had such a power to give to government in the first place?
 
Last edited:
When your differing "opinion" includes the assertion that you have the right to send thugs out to rob me at gunpoint, you're damned right I'm intolerant of it. It's not just an "opinion" anymore, it's the advocation of violent predation.
What in the hell are you talking about? I've never said I have the right to send thugs to your house. Knock off the strawman analogies and tell me specifically what you're trying to say.

You support the constitution. The constitution grants a virtually unlimited power to tax. Do I really need to connect the dots?
 
I ask again: At what point does armed robbery become magically transformed into something just, right and proper (taxation)? How many people does it take for the EXACT SAME ACT to be transformed from a moral outrage into a righteous act? And, exactly how does this magical transformation occur?

Do you assume that I am happy with the 16th amendment? I've called for it's repeal in this very thread.
 
Do you assume that I am happy with the 16th amendment? I've called for it's repeal in this very thread.

I assume nothing of the kind. The constitution grants the power of taxation, whether that power takes the form of import duties, excise taxes or the income tax is irrelevant to the fundamental issue.

Do you support taxation? The constitution does.
 
I assume nothing of the kind. The constitution grants the power of taxation, whether that power takes the form of import duties, excise taxes or the income tax is irrelevant to the fundamental issue.

Do you support taxation? The constitution does.

Also, from where exactly did the DELEGATED power to tax come from? What is its legitimate source? WHO EXACTLY had such a power to give to government in the first place?
 
When your differing "opinion" includes the assertion that you have the right to send thugs out to rob me at gunpoint, you're damned right I'm intolerant of it. It's not just an "opinion" anymore, it's the advocation of violent predation.

You support the constitution. The constitution grants a virtually unlimited power to tax. Do I really need to connect the dots?

I understand that anarchists are against all forms of government and taxation. That is definitely an ideal to strive for but the unfortunate reality is that mankind is nowhere near capable of managing in this way.

If the goal of the anarchists in this forum is to try and change the hearts and minds of others on this issue, I would say you all are doing a really shitty job of it and you're only hurting your cause.
 
Tremendoustie, nothing you've written changes anything I've said. You, like most anarchists, are trying to paint me with a broad brush and accuse me of wanting to steal your property, blada blada blah! You, like most others, can't point to one single country that has successfully achieved your brand of freedom in a longlasting manner. That is because, as I have said all along, all systems, even anarcho-capitalism, minarchy, voluntarianism, etc. rely on the scruples of the people. You are head-butting human nature with your philosophy and all that is going to do is give you a headache. Why? Because humanity hasn't even come close to being able to handle what you propose. You want the baby to run before it can even crawl.

Look around you! We're heading toward global governance and you're browbeating people who aren't on board with your philosophy. I think you anarchists need to get your priorities straight.
 
That is definitely an ideal to strive for but the unfortunate reality is that mankind is nowhere near capable of managing in this way.

Then in what way is mankind capable of managing?

Certainly not a Constitutional Republic, as one can see now.

Is it also accurate to say, "[A Constitutional Republic] is definitely an ideal to strive for but the unfortunate reality is that mankind is nowhere near capable of managing in this way"?

If anarchy should be dismissed on this basis 'that mankind is nowhere near capable of managing in this way', so should a Constitutional Republic given the absolutely horrendous way in which it has failed.
 
Last edited:
Deborah,

The fact of the matter is what you advocate IS VIOLENCE. It's not painting with a broad brush, it's not slanting your words, it's not strawmen. IT IS WHAT YOU ADVOCATE. You have not once REFUTED that, you have continually JUSTIFIED your support of it, and DEFLECTED the topic elsewhere, but you acknowledge that you advocate violence.

Now, even if I could be persuaded to believe that somehow your magic pixxy dust utopia of minarchy could exist (since it's already been tried and failed, we'll leave that aside though), why on earth would I want to believe that I should advocate violence to achieve it? The ends will NEVER justify the means, least of all when the plain and simple fact is that minarchy DOES NOT WORK. So what you're left with is a system handmade for the corrupt and power hungry to usurp, a society oppressed, and you with your principles compromised from the very beginning because you advocated the violence to create the system in the first place. This is human progress to you?


"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
 
I think you anarchists need to get your priorities straight.

And I think you minarchists need to get your priorities straight. You can't go ten seconds without complaining about government, and the coming 'world government' and government is bad.

And yet, your solution is to create a government.


Cognitive dissonance thy name is minarchy.
 
And I think you minarchists need to get your priorities straight. You can't go ten seconds without complaining about government, and the coming 'world government' and government is bad.

And yet, your solution is to create a government.


Cognitive dissonance thy name is minarchy.

well said! :cool:
 
I understand that anarchists are against all forms of government and taxation. That is definitely an ideal to strive for


Indeed it IS something to strive for. It's a goal worthy of the effort it will take to achieve it where there are so very many goals that just aren't. So we agree, at least, on this point. I'd call that progress.



but the unfortunate reality is that mankind is nowhere near capable of managing in this way.


Says who? You? Based upon what evidence?

You, like so many "liberty advocates" I've known over the years seem to have a very pessimistic view of mankind. And yet, for every despicaple example of humanity that's willing to violate the rights of their fellows I can show you a hundred, a thousand, likely even ten thousand who are more than willing to respect same, for the most part.

Sure, there are a lot of rough edges, but many of those would simply disappear in the absence of the state and it's constant predations. Would it be paradise? Of course not. But compared to what we have now I absolutely believe that it would almost SEEM like it.

There would certainly still be the occasional sociopath that simply couldn't be reasoned with. But most people wouldn't be like that, once they no longer HAD TO just to survive and provide a decent life for themselves and their loved ones.

Most people just don't give a damn what anyone else is doing, so long as those others aren't hurting them. There would certainly be some hurdles to get over, but that would happen pretty quickly and peacefully IMO.

Also, since a voluntary society clearly IS the most morally justified of the positions before us, we can't just throw those moral principles out the window because they may be difficult to uphold.

When I was young, in teaching me right from wrong, my parents offered this particular bit of wisdom. Upholding moral principles when it's easy doesn't really count for much. Anybody can do that. Upholding those principles when it's difficult, when the odds are against you, when it may actually cost you something significant, THAT'S an expression of true character. We used to, in my day, have a word for that. That word was INTEGRITY. Either you have it or you don't. Do you?


If the goal of the anarchists in this forum is to try and change the hearts and minds of others on this issue, I would say you all are doing a really shitty job of it and you're only hurting your cause.


I'm not trying to "convert" anyone. I realize that I CAN'T convert anyone. Only they can change their own worldviews.

But I'll be damned if I'll just sit back and allow others to advocate violent predation without at least speaking out against it. If it offends some, tough shit. They're the ones claiming some right to initiate force against ME, not the other way around.
 
Last edited:
Just to get things back on track, I ask YET again:

At what point does armed robbery become magically transformed into something just, right and proper (taxation)? How many people does it take for the EXACT SAME ACT to be transformed from a moral outrage into a righteous act? And, exactly how does this magical transformation occur?

Also, from where exactly did the DELEGATED power to tax come from? What is its legitimate source? WHO EXACTLY had such a power to give to government in the first place?

I've yet to see ANY minarchist/constitutionalist provide a reasonable answer to any of those questions.
 
Markets Do Not Make Morals

Free Market _____ are the most efficient.


(fill in the blank with anything your heart desires)


;)

Free market rape colonies are the most efficient.

Free market torture chambers for children are the most efficient.

Free market schools for ninja-style theft are the most efficient.

My point is just because something is a product of the free market doesn't make it right, either.
 
Free market rape colonies are the most efficient.

Free market torture chambers for children are the most efficient.

Free market schools for ninja-style theft are the most efficient.

My point is just because something is a product of the free market doesn't make it right, either.

Free market homosexual execution squads are the most efficient.

Somehow I think you'd have less objection to that one.
 
Lest I Be Mistaken

Free market homosexual execution squads are the most efficient.

Somehow I think you'd have less objection to that one.

I see you didn't realize how my last post blew away your hypothesis that anything with "free market" attached to it is good, unless you think rape colonies, torture chambers for children, and schools for ninja-style theft are good things...

In my ideal society, the free market would have nothing to do with the civil punishment of gays. The (limited) government would take care of that through civil litigation.
 
Back
Top